Bush said he authorized eavesdropping by NIS

If this was such an abomination, why did senate democrats such as Rockafeller, no great buddy of Bush and who was informed, not have anything to say about it?
Click to expand...
How do we know for sure what he knew? How do we know he didn't have a LOT to say about it, but agreed not to blow the whistle in deference to the POTUS for political reasons? It might be something that he later gets his feet held to the fire over, but that's not a defense either.

Again, we are not talking about domestic communication here but terrorism related international communication. Having dug through the USC and some of the case law, I have yet to see convincing evidence that this was illegal.
Click to expand...
Rob P's cogent and timely post just after yours would seem to disagree, and from what I can tell he's right. Seems they knew this would get ugly, or else they wouldn't have asked the NYT to sit on it.
 
Is there any type of person in the US that these wiretaps could've been done on that don't fall under the protection of the bill of rights? Not sure if I'm asking that properly...basically I'm wondering if the simple fact that wiretaps were done without warrants in the US makes them unconstitutional or is there some loophole that would make it legal?
 
I believe that the question you're really asking is this:

Is there any time when the U.S. govt (or it's operatives) does not have to abide by constitutional restrictions?

The answer is no, the gov't (or it's operatives) must always operate within the framework of the document which created it.

Some will argue that non-US citizens do not have "rights" under the BoR's because they are not citizens. However, I have yet to see ANYONE posit that the 5th amendment forbidding compelled testimony against oneself doesn't apply to foreigners who are in the U.S. either legally or illegally. My point would be that if the 5th amendment applies, then ALL the amendments apply.

This is because the "rights" contained in the BoR's aren't gifted to us by the gov't. The rights in the BoR's are enumerated restrictions on the gov'ts ability to act against the people. Once restricted, the gov't CANNOT go beyond those restrictions even when person(s) being acted against is/are non U.S. citizens.
 
So it doesn't matter if a person is not a citizen or a resident or even here illegally, the Bill of Rights legally applies to any individual on American soil?

I'm not challenging, I just want to be absolutely sure.
 
The problem here is the civilians that have no clue whatsoever what it takes to maintain a free country.
Click to expand...
The exact thought process that has inexorably and quietly ushered in virtually every tyrannical regime in the history of the world.
Scary, really.

The Law is The Law; I couldn't care how many times an indiviudal violates The Law and gets away with it, or how many others he can point to that did the same. If you violate The Law and get caught, there is no free pass, regardless of your position. I'm interested to see whether the Courts will, in fact, find this to be a violation. If so, it would be an extremely dangerous precedent for the American public to claim, "So what? Things are 'different'" today.

Congress changes potentially every 2 years; the Presidency every 4....be careful what powers you grant to your unknown future leaders...the only thing for certain is that they will claim "Things are 'different' today".
Rich
 
So it doesn't matter if a person is not a citizen or a resident or even here illegally, the Bill of Rights legally applies to any individual on American soil?
Click to expand...

Yes, it does. They're recognized as inalienable human rights.
 
What's new?

Pres. Carter executive order 12139:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.
Click to expand...

Pres clinton executive order 12949:
Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:

(a) Secretary of State;

(b) Secretary of Defense;

(c) Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
Click to expand...

Pres. George W. Bush merely amends previous EO's with his EO 13383, 7-15-05:
Executive Order: Amending Executive Orders 12139 and 12949 in Light of Establishment of the Office of Director of National Intelligence

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section. 1. Section 1-103 of Executive Order 12139 of May 23, 1979, is amended by:

(a) striking "(c) Director of Central Intelligence" and inserting in lieu thereof "(c) Director of National Intelligence";

(b) striking "(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence" and inserting in lieu thereof "(g) Director of the Central Intelligence Agency"; and

(c) adding at the end thereof "(h) Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence.".

Sec. 2. Section 3 of Executive Order 12949 of February 9, 1995, is amended by:

(a) striking "(c) Director of Central Intelligence" and inserting in lieu thereof "Director of National Intelligence";

(b) striking "and" at the end of subsection (f);

(c) striking "(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence." and inserting in lieu thereof "(g) Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; and"; and

(d) adding at the end thereof "(h) Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence.".

Sec. 3. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE,

July 15, 2005.
Click to expand...


A lot more illegal surveillance is taking place. If caught, the only downside is the evidence can't be used in court. Who's going to prosecute an offending spy on a technical violation? If you believe the ends justify the means (as most .gov agents seem to), the upside potential is far outweighs than the downside risks.

I haven't spent much time on this....what am I missing?
 
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Prof. Orin Kerr has taken a look at the NSA Surveillance Program and has offered a legal analysis.

It is a very long read and unless you are versed in some of the legalities cited, you may get lost in his reasonings.

Orin starts off with:
Legal Analysis of the NSA Domestic Surveillance Program:

Was the secret NSA surveillance program legal? Was it constitutional? Did it violate federal statutory law? It turns out these are hard questions, but I wanted to try my best to answer them. My answer is pretty tentative, but here it goes: Although it hinges somewhat on technical details we don't know, it seems that the program was probably constitutional but probably violated the federal law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. My answer is extra-cautious for two reasons. First, there is some wiggle room in FISA, depending on technical details we don't know of how the surveillance was done. Second, there is at least a colorable argument — if, I think in the end, an unpersuasive one — that the surveillance was authorized by the Authorization to Use Miltary Force as construed in the Hamdi opinion.

This is a really long post, so let me tell you where I'm going. I'm going to start with the Fourth Amendment; then turn to FISA; next look to the Authorization to Use Military Force; and conclude by looking at claim that the surveillance was justified by the inherent authority of Article II. And before I start, let me be clear that nothing in this post is intended to express or reflect a normative take of whether the surveillance program is a good idea or a bad idea. In other words, I'm just trying to answer what the law is, not say what the law should be. If you think my analysis is wrong, please let me know in the comment section; I'd be delighted to post a correction.
Click to expand...
Be forwarned, this gets very technical, with respect to Law.

My take is that if this proceeds through the Court system and makes it to SCOTUS, it is more than likely to be ruled as Constitutional. This conclusion hangs upon unknown (at present) facts on how the calls were actually intercepted. i.e. within the US or from outside the borders (see 50 USC 1801, 1802 and 1809 - FISA Act).

Like Prof. Kerr, I am not saying this is good law, nor am I saying that this is what it should be.
 
Hint: any case going before SCOTUS involving possible limitation of executive branch power will be struck down. SCOTUS will not limit executive power. Take it to the bank. Any justice vetted for a SCOTUS gig will be carefully quizzed.
 
Antipitas - talking heads on the news last evening stated there is no need to seek a warrant when the only intent is to procure information. The need for a warrant is necessary when the intent is to procure information for use as evidence in a criminal trial.

Since the purpose of this information gathering did not involve a criminal trial or evidence... the administration did not need the warrant. This is the reason both the Clinton and Reagan administration have used these same exact powers in the past.

Actually, as I type this, I believe it was a guest... not the actual anchor, who stated the above.

In your opinion (anyone else chime in as well), do you believe there is any truth to this angle? And could this be what you mean when you state:

Be forwarned, this gets very technical, with respect to Law.
Click to expand...
 
So then, if this is correct, the administration is following the law?

Then the debate should go to whether or not the law in unconstitutional... not whether or not the administration is evil?... Right?

Can you get in trouble for following the law even if it's unconstitutional? What trumps what? The Constitution, or the law as it's written?

Too many questions... I know!
 
Quote:
Since the purpose of this information gathering did not involve a criminal trial or evidence... the administration did not need the warrant.


Correct

Wildnowgotostage2Alaska
Click to expand...


Actually, it's incorrect. It's a process known as "bootstrapping". "Bootstrapping" is when one attempts to use information obtained in a shady manner in order to justify the warrant that authorizes the access to the information you wouldn't have known about had it not been for the shady manner in which the information was obtained originally. In plain language: You can't use illegal means to get information to justify a warrant in order to seize/gather the information you already know about because of the illegal activity.

This was an issue in today's headlineswhere a FISA judge resigned (supposedly) because of this.
The Post said Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless National Security Agency surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/security_eavesdropping_court_dc
 
Actually, it's incorrect. It's a process known as "bootstrapping". "Bootstrapping" is when one attempts to use information obtained in a shady manner in order to justify the warrant that authorizes the access to the information you wouldn't have known about had it not been for the shady manner in which the information was obtained originally. In plain language: You can't use illegal means to get information to justify a warrant in order to seize/gather the information you already know about because of the illegal activity.
Click to expand...

Bootstrapping has nothing to do with the case at hand.

WildintelligencegatheringisdifferentthancrinminalinvestigationAlaska
 
You can't use illegal means to get information to justify a warrant in order to seize/gather the information you already know about because of the illegal activity.
Click to expand...
Is this really what the administration has done? Or, have they obtained information legally, with out a warrant, just for the purpose of having the information (to thwart an attack - so they'll claim). Therefore not using the information to obtain a warrant. Which is what your definition of "bootstrapping" signifies... Maybe I'm running in circles... this is slightly confusing to me.
 
Trip-
Same here. It would seem to me that tapping US Citizens' phones on a fishing expedition is far more eggregious than doing so when you have some reasonable expectation of garnering evidence of a crime.

What am I missing? It's OK to tap phone calls without a warrant as long as the person is NOT suspected of a crime; because this is "just intelligence gathering"?
:confused:
Rich
 
100% Political Correctness and the Victory of Terrorism

If we can no longer intercept International calls going to and from the USA to AlKaeda cells in Pakistan, or whatever, I suppose we can just sit back in our 100% by the book, civil rights 100% protected mode and wait for the bad guys to call Jay Rockefeller to tell him where the next bomb will be detonated?

Happened across this article detailing the immense helpfulness shown by our "Leading Democrat" when he went to Saudi and Syria, etc. just before the Iraq war started, to give everyone a "heads-up" about the invasion plans........WTF?

Maybe with Jay helping out with advance intelligence, THAT was enough warning to get the WMDs moved out of Iraq ahead of our incoming troops? Quoting from an old anti-war anthem from my generation...."Blowing in the Wind" - When will they ever learn?

We are going to politically correct ourselves to DEATH, pussyfooting around while the terrorists of the world keep doing whatever it takes to win.

Somebody needs to get the word out, this is not a '50's Cowboy movie we're living in, where the good guy tosses away his gun when the bad guy runs out of bullets, to take the bad guy on hand to hand. This is a REAL world where if that happens, and you suddenly have the advantage, you SHOOT the bad guy.

TEXT FOLLOWS:

Terrorists Possess Multimillion Dollar Intelligence Network

by Jim Kouri, CPP

CBS News reports that "as the US military death toll continues to rise, officials have determined that the insurgents are utilizing media reports to outsmart armed forces."

Perhaps that's overstating the problem. I won't denigrate our military by alleging the insurgents our outsmarting our military, but I will admit that it seems as if the insurgents in Iraq and the terrorists across the globe are outsmarting the news media and their comrades on the left. These members of the elite, who suffer from the delusion that they're the smartest people in the room, are not difficult to outsmart by their own admission.

The media template for President George Bush and for conservatives in general is that we're not too swift when it comes to intelligence. However, that assessment may more closely define the left in the Democrat Party and the news media than it does the unwashed masses and their president.

The media template provides as a given that George W. Bush is inarticulate and not very bright. Okay, for the sake of argument I'll give them that. But how do they explain how Bush could: (1) Steal two elections; (2) Con them into voting for the Iraq War that they're against; (3) Get reelected against a supposedly intellectually superior opponent -- well, that was before we found out Kerry was really a dunce in college.

So the Democrats, who can't hold on to an election they claim is theirs and can be easily manipulated to vote for a war they oppose, want us to give them a shot at controlling the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House? Really? A bunch of intellectual geniuses who can be duped by a Texas dunderhead think they're worthy of ruling the country with their neo-Marxist supporters? I don't think so.

The GOP may be wanting in many areas, but they are still far superior than the whining, wash-women who can't even hold on to an election in spite of advantages such as having dead folks and illegal aliens vote and MTV urging kids to vote left because it's cool to be a lefty. Plus the members of the news media who performs lap dances for the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton and others in the Democrat Party made certain to attempt hurting Bush with forged documents and hearsay. Add the whole entertainment media, the magazine industry including even TV Guide and it's a miracle that John Kerry lost to the mentally challenged George Bush. Not only that, but Bush also outsmarted them by not leaving a trail to prove he stole the second election.

So now CBS News reports that the terrorists and insurgents are outsmarting the US troops. Remember, the denizens of America's newsrooms believe they're the brightest bulbs in the stadium. So our dumb troops are being outsmarted by Muslim radicals who still live in the 12th Century?

Not so. Actually, it is the news media who are being outsmarted. They are saving the international terrorist network tons of money. The terrorists do not need an intelligence network to help their operations -- they have the Democrats, some Republicans and the news media working in lockstep to provide them with a well-oiled intelligence asset. Not only that, but unlike the US intelligence community, the terrorists' intelligence network includes commercials so they take a bathroom break, refill their glasses with goat's milk, or simply sit back and watch a Victoria's Secret commercial as they daydream about those 72 virgins all looking like Tyra Banks.

A terrorist with access to Google, Yahoo, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc., makes for a formidable spy since he can find out about strategic and tactical intelligence. He can find out about secret CIA prisons. Or find out about what interrogators can and cannot do to obtain information from captured terrorists.

The news media and Democrats provide the terrorists and insurgents with talking points, as well. Examples abound. For instance, Senator Dick Durbin on the floor of the US Senate comparing US soldiers to Hitler's stormtroopers, US detention facilities to gulags and US operations to the killing fields of Cambodia's mass murderer Pol Pot. Another example is Newsweek regurgitating jailhouse gossip that a US soldier flushed a Koran down the toilet in the Gitmo prison. Hell, besides being an intelligence network for the Islamofascists, they're also the recruiting arm of Al-Qaeda.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, ranking Democrat for the Senate Intelligence Committee, actually admitted he's an intelligence operative for radical Islamic terrorists and state-sponsors of terrorism. By his own admission, prior to the invasion of Iraq, he flew to the Middle East and met with heads of state from Syria, a nation on the US list of sponsors of terrorism, and Saudi Arabia, a nation that should be on that list. Rockefeller told Fox News Channel's Chris Wallace that he warned the Syrians and Saudis that Bush had made up his mind to attack Iraq. That's right! Senator Rockefeller gave a country that harbors terrorists, Syria, and a nation in which certain members of its royal family financially support terrorists, Saudi Arabia, inside information about what he believed were Bush's war plans.

And we wonder what happened to the weapons of mass destruction? I hope President Bush did mislead Rockefeller on prewar intelligence and postwar intelligence, as well. The Senator is a one man snitch operation paid for by US taxpayers.

And the Democrats are great at providing counterintelligence operations for the terrorists. For example, there were military intelligence reports that indicated they were monitoring Osama bin Laden's cellphone. Well, within an hour the entire world including Osama found out about it thanks to an idiot Senator who went in front of the TV cameras and blabbed about the surveillance to the world. Sprint lost a customer that day with Osama probably switching to AT &T.

There are many other examples: from Geraldo Rivera tracing troop movements in the sand to reporters informing the world that US special forces where closing in on bin Laden or some other terrorist leader.

Here's an interesting pastime, whenever reading a newspaper or watching TV news or listening to newsradio, check out how many times you read or hear something that would be beneficial to you if your were a terrorist. You'll be shocked. Perhaps it's all Americans who are being outsmarted by the international terrorist network. Afterall, aren't we the ones who pay the salaries of their intelligence operatives?


Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. He writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a staff writer for New Media Alliance (thenma.org), and he's a columnist for TheConservativeVoice.Com, AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.
_________________
 
Trip, lets put this issue into a simpler context.

You cannot use illegally gained information to support a warrant to now legally gather the same information.

Ex: The cops break into your house, run the serial #'s on all your guns and find that one gun has a ding that makes it's # unreadable. Now, the cops leave, get a warrant to search for guns with altered serial #'s. They come back and seize the gun with the unreadable serial # as being "altered".

Had the cops not broken into your home they wouldn't have known of the dinged up gun. Without that knowledge, they couldn't have met the probable cause requirement for the warrant. To now use the illegal information to support the warrant means that the warrant is based upon illegally gathered evidence to seize the gun. Any attempt to "justify" the illegal activity as being one of "public safety" wherein the cops are merely checking to make sure all your guns are legal is irrelevant. They commited an illegal act and are now asking the court to make it legal and support it.

Our justice system does not use or support illegal activities even when the end result may put a bad guy in jail. To do that sort of thing makes our justice system into a criminal enterprise equal to the criminals it prosecutes. It also creates a conundrum in which the justice system is pitted against itself in an attempt to prosecute those who engage in criminal activities. It becomes a question where the court has to ask, "who are the bad guys if we both do criminal acts?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top